Health Alert

Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

In this week's special documentary episode of the podcast, we explore the life and legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Was he a poor, disgruntled loner or an overachieving marine? A presidential assassin or a sheep-dipped patsy? Find out in this week's edition of The Corbett Report.

Transcript and Sources

Lee Harvey Oswald. The truth about what happened with JFK begins where the myth of Lee Harvey Oswald ends. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail…and die.

So who was Lee Harvey Oswald? Well, it depends who you want to believe. You can take him at face value or you can listen to the same people who sold you the Gulf of Tonkin, incubator babies and WMDs in Iraq, Jessica Lynch, and a million other lies.

Yes, that’s Dan Rather. Yes, the same Dan Rather who rose to prominence for his reporting on the ground in Dallas during those hectic few days surrounding the assassination of Kennedy, the capture of Oswald, Oswald’s own death. The same Dan Rather who, as one of the first and only people in the world to see the now-infamous Zapruder film before it was locked up by Skull & Bones / CIA asset Henry Luce’s Time/Life for 12 years and hidden away from the public, used that occasion to rush back to the studio so he could lie about it on air.

And that was the American public’s perception of the murder of their president for over a decade, until they actually had the chance to see it with their own eyes, presented courtesy of none other than Geraldo Rivera.

“Upsetting.” Is the word “upsetting” adequate to the task, Geraldo? Horrifying, perhaps. There, on live TV, the public witnessed not just the grisly death of the president, but with their own eyes they saw how an entire web of lies had been spun around JFK’s death by a spider more insidious than any arachnid. Not “forward with considerable violence” but “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MLc0udf_74″ target=”_blank”>back and to the left.”

But why? Why the lie? Why the rush to capture, kill and posthumously indict this man: Lee Harvey Oswald? And if he wasn’t who they said he was, then who was he really?

In order to sort through any pile of manure, let alone one that has been piled high for 50 years, you have to get your hands dirty. So let us examine the manure that we are expected to swallow surrounding the official mythos of Oswald, the wizard of Dealey with his magic bullets.

So how can we unlock this myth? The keys to this story are all right in front of our face, if only we’ll recognize them.

A hero? Maybe not exactly. But the lone assassin of the president? Certainly not.

The term for it in intelligence circles is sheep-dipping. It’s when a military or intelligence asset is given a civilian cover to continue their work for the government in a way that can’t be traced back. It explains why Timothy McVeigh wrote letters to his sister claiming he had been selected for an elite Special Forces unit at Fort Bragg that participated in government-sanctioned assassinations and drug running shortly before “leaving” the service and beginning his transformation from ultra-successful Bronze Star Army hero into the monster of the Oklahoma City Bombing. It also explains how Lee Harvey Oswald, a dirt poor Marine Corps runt from Louisiana managed to learn fluent Russian, get discharged from the Marines, fly to Europe with money he didn’t have, stay at the most luxurious hotels along the way, and waltz into the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. It also explains why the U.S. Embassy loaned him the money to come back to the States after meeting and marrying his Russian wife, and even gave him a “military hop” home.

Oswald was a sheep-dipped asset, likely working for the CIA in the fake defector scheme they had to run spies into the Soviet Union in the 1950s. This program has been documented since the time of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s, which uncovered the internal CIA documents confirming the program. JFK researcher Lisa Pease explains.

Oswald’s legend had been carefully established, a trail of cookie crumbs that led to the Soviet Union, and to the activities of some highly dubious pro-Castro Cuban groups. So all that was needed once the President had been lured into the killing grounds and the turkey shoot was over was to round up their man.

Then it was just a question of finishing off the job, courtesy of another man claiming to be a patsy.

…But when we talk about Lee Harvey Oswald, the question has to be raised: do we know who we’re talking about? Are we even talking about one man?

Maybe it’s too late. Maybe we’ll never find the real Lee Harvey Oswald underneath the decades of manure that have been piled on top of his story. But there is one thing of which we can be certain: the rush to frame, capture, kill and convict in the court of public opinion this alleged disgruntled loner only makes sense as a distractionary measure. To keep the public focused on the how, instead of the real question. The transgressive question. The question that really matters: why?

50 years ago this month there was a coup d’etat in America. A coup that placed the shadow government of the National Security state—born in 1947 and already controlling more and more of the apparatus of government—firmly in the seat of power in America. It was a coup that occurred in broad daylight. Everyone saw it. And no one can speak its name. That is the ultimate coup.

Perhaps we will never know who Lee Harvey Oswald was, what he knew, whether in fact he was more a character than a man, a character with more than one actor. But in the final conclusion, we have no reason to doubt that he told the truth after all, there in the ominous hours before his death.

Some good historical footage here including Giraldo, Rather, and Garrison, and scenes of the period in New Orleans. Notice Oswald, identified as Lee Oswald, not by his later assassins triple name like John Wilkes Booth, calls himself a patsy. Judyth Vary Baker missing from the interviews.

Not too excited here. The CBS report that's quoted, for example, still uses the tactic of misdirection and limited hangout, implying that the information concealed by the FBI and CIA concerned only, 'how much they had known about Lee Harvey Oswald and the threat that he posed.' Yeah, right.

This new "investigative biography" leaves much to be desired. It does mention many of the theories around Oswald but offers little in the way of discussion. Some things in it I hadn't seen was the one witness who claims to have heard all 3 shots from the depository window, including the click sounds of reloading. The footage looks vintage of his testimony so it has probably been around for some time. Just new or not recalled by me anyway. A computer graphic of the view during the shooting. Of course it took a computer to get all 3 shots off in time. Here it is for a good side by side comparison with JC's report.

The way he makes some of his points about the significance of the issue of the assassination resembles almost exactly the way I think about that of the issue of 9/11 truth--specifically:

'...what is so compelling about the JFK assassination is how nakedly the gangster nature of the state is revealed. It is an awakening. And to know the truth about the JFK assassination is to create a delegitimating force that calls into question the entire state system and the entire social order it represents.'

'By investigating the JFK conspiracy, we are not looking for an escape from something unpleasant and difficult...we're hitting upon the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy....It was a startling revelation to the American public, to make them realize what kind of a gangster government and national security state we really have in this country, and what it does around the world.'

'I have a different name for our interests. It is not JFK worship, it's not Camelot yearnings, as the left critics would say; it's not big evils and conspiracy titillation, as the mainstream media would say. Our interest is born of democratic struggle, a desire to know what is going on, a desire to have leaders who are worthy of our name, and the name of democracy.'

Of course, Buckley -- an intelligent man -- is hampered by defending the indefensible. Even in '66 Buckley was floating the canard that people who were seeking the real truth of the assassination (who, what, where, when, why) are somehow mentally deficient and peculiarly interested in 'conspiracies'.

"November 22, 2013, is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The true story of JFK’s murder has never been officially admitted, although the conclusion that JFK was murdered by a plot involving the Secret Service, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been well established by years of research...

To briefly review, the facts are conclusive that JFK was on terrible terms with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. He had refused to support the CIA organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs’ “Operation Northwoods,” a plan to commit real and faked acts of violence against Americans, blame Castro and use the false flag events to bring regime change to Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs case that the Soviet Union should be attacked while the US held the advantage and before the Soviets could develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons. He had indicated that after his reelection he was going to pull US troops out of Vietnam and that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He had aroused suspicion by working behind the scenes with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to claims that he was “soft on communism.” The CIA and Joint Chiefs’ belief that JFK was an unreliable ally in the war against communism spread into the Secret Service."

Published on Nov 22, 2013
TRANSCRIPTS AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=8262
Everything you wanted to know about the JFK assassination in under 5 minutes. The Warren Commission: connecting the dots so you don't have to!

"To keep the public focused on the how, instead of the real question. The transgressive question. The question that really matters: why?"[Quote from above].

Yes,we can learn from the JFK assassination. The quote above reminds me of how 911 was covered up by people working from within the movement to narrow it's focus down simple to the question of what brought the towers down. They then sold us controlled demolition and every other aspect/question about 911 largely ignored.

that the twin towers and WTC 7 were brought down via controlled demolition and that the official story is false, and then see what the aftermath was and who gained, it is not very hard to understand that 911 was about deceptively garnering public support for wars that were about control of oil resources.

Knowing how JFK was killed (and that it was a conspiracy and certainly was not Lee Oswald), who covered it up, and who gained afterward, does answer the question of why to a large degree.

This how and why thing was nothing more than an interesting line to use in the film JFK and there shouldn't be too much read into it. Neither 911 or the Kennedy assassination are truly mysteries. What stops divulgence of their reality as crimes committed by domestic conspirators in both cases is politics due to the ramifications.

That line from the film 'JFK' doesn't really say anything about the actual interrelation of the questions 'who,' 'how,' and 'why,' with respect to either the JFK assassination or 9/11.

In the case of the former, the answer to 'why' that was fed the public was simply Oswald's alleged madness and desire for fame. The true answer to the question 'why' could not be arrived at until the answer to the 'who' question changed; and changing that answer, in turn, hinged on the answer to the 'how' question changing. As more of the public came to understand the implausibility of the official answer for 'how' (e.g., number of shots fired, from which direction), they likewise saw that the official answer of 'who' was unacceptable, and from there they came to see that the question 'why' was, accordingly, still open.

In the case of 9/11, a difference is that acceptance of the official version of 'who' and 'how' has produced not one but two answers to the question 'why'. The one pushed by the US authorities is, 'they hate our freedoms,' while many of their supposed critics respond, 'No, they're mad at our foreign policy' (an answer which does little if anything to change the perception of who the enemy is, and thus has done little to undermine support for the policies which these critics profess to oppose).

As distinct from those opponents of US policy who accept the official answers relating to the 'who' and 'how' of 9/11, the 9/11 truth movement understands that arriving at a correct understanding of 'why' depends on changing one's understanding of 'who' was really behind it; and that changing one's understanding of 'who' likewise depends on a different understanding of 'how'. By 'how' I am not referring only to the question of how the buildings came down--e.g., how the alleged perpetrators were handled and set up is also a big part of the overall 'how' of 9/11. One's perception of 'who' can change dramatically when confronted with facts about how the WTC buildings were actually brought down. But that perception could also be changed by reference to other facts as well.

is the clearest and most difficult to manipulate evidence that something far different from what we were told actually occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, there are other details from the day that add to the conclusion that others, besides hijackers, were involved. However, no other piece of evidence, that I have seen, has the strength to upset the Bush administration narrative all by itself, as does the collapse of WTC 7.

What can one say? People don't realize that nothing has changed since. The same M.O., with pretty much the same results. There is the www now but there's so much crap to sort out, most people won't even make an effort to do so, and besides that most people want to stay in their comfortzone anyway. Understandable of course, but this constitutes our greatest obstacle I think. We cannot and must not quit of course but it's tough, and it will remain tough. But keep up the good work!